West Brom were awarded three points and a 3-0 win over Sheffield United on this day in 2002, as the fallout continued after ‘the Battle of Bramall Lane’.
Five days after the Division One clash had been abandoned by referee Eddie Wolstenholme, the Blades were left to deal with the repercussions of a shameful afternoon.
Following the dismissal of Blades goalkeeper Simon Tracey for handling outside his penalty area after only nine minutes, events turned significantly more toxic when Baggies captain Derek McInnes added to Scott Dobie’s first-half diving header to put the visitors 2-0 up on the hour.
Seconds after his arrival as a 64th-minute substitute, United defender Georges Santos – who had suffered a fractured eye socket courtesy of Andy Johnson’s elbow the previous season – was sent off after launching into a two-footed tackle on the Baggies midfielder.
In the subsequent mass brawl which followed, fellow Blades substitute Patrick Suffo was also dismissed after head-butting McInnes right in front of the referee.
Dobie made it 3-0 before Blades midfielder Michel Brown and defender Rob Ullathorne then both limped off, leaving the home side with only six men on the field – one of which being substitute goalkeeper Wilko De Vogt who had come on in place of striker Peter Ndlovu after Tracey’s red card.
Sheffield United boss Neil Warnock, pictured, clashed with West Brom manager Gary Megson on the touchline (Nick Potts/PA)
That resulted in the match being abandoned with eight minutes remaining due to there not being the required number of minimum players present.
A war of words followed between infuriated West Brom boss Gary Megson, who labelled the situation “disgraceful”, and Blades manager Neil Warnock – who said he was “pleased with the effort” his players put in.
The English Football League subsequently ruled the result should stand and Sheffield United were later fined £10,000 for failing to control their players.
There were also fines for Warnock and Blades captain Keith Curle while Suffo and Santos were both handed six-match bans.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here